JUDGMENT :

B.A. PATIL, J.

1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the judgment passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.Nos.542/2017, 543/2017, 541/2017 and 514/2017 respectively, wherein the appeals came to be dismissed by confirming the common judgment and order passed by XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in C.C.Nos.18797/2016, 18796/2016, 18798/2016 and 18795/2016 respectively.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

3. Since in all these cases both the parties are same and facts and law involved are one and the same, they are clubbed together and common order has been passed.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a film director and accused No.2 used to undertake the work of make up to the film artists. In that context, complainant and accused No.2 came in contact. During the year 2012-2013 complainant accumulated a sum of Rs.40 lakhs for production of the film. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not produce the film. In view of the acquaintance, accused No.2 sought for hand loan to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant and in this regard, she has issued post dated cheques for discharge of the said liability. Accused was paying the interest regularly and all of a sudden in the month of November 2014, she stopped paying interest. As such, complainant insisted for repayment of the amount and at that time, accused No.2 got executed a loan agreement on 20.2.2015 and to refund the said amount, has issued the cheques. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured with the shara as "funds insufficient" and thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued. In spite of service of notice, no reply was given and the amount has not been paid, as such, the complainant filed a private complaint.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and secured the presence of the accused. The accused appeared and her plea was recorded. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, trial was fixed. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 in all the cases and got marked the documents. In one of the cases i.e., C.C.No.18798/2016, he got examined the bank manager as P.W.2. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused got examined herself as D.W.1 and in two cases she got marked Ex.D1. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court held the accused guilty. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred four appeals. The appeals also came to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court.

6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 are that the order of the appellate Court in dismissing the appeals and confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court are not sustainable in law and the same are liable to be set aside. It is his submission that the Courts below have not applied their mind to the factual matrix of the case. The trial Court, in its judgment, has made a chart mentioning the amount, cheque numbers and date, said to have been issued by accused No.2 in favour of the complainant. If the entire amount is calculated, it will not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. This itself goes to show that the trial Court has mechanically passed the impugned order.

It is his further submission that accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and subsequently, she has repaid the said amount and there is no question of she borrowing an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. The complainant was not having the capacity to pay the said huge amount of Rs.25 lakhs. Because of his financial constraints and difficulties, he has sold his properties, which itself indicates that he was not having any capacity to lend the l